The ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation by relying on Article 19(3) of the Statute at the request of the Prosecutor, results which have not been known before. The ICC jurisprudence in relation to the application of Article 19 of the Statute to the situation in the Myanmar has led to conclusions that are important to examine. Therefore, reviewing the results of the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation and identifying the exit strategy based on jurisprudence is one of the objectives and subject of this article. Research method is descriptive-analytical and relies on the Statute provisions and the ICC jurisprudence to answer research question. What are the results of the prosecutor’s request for a ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation? Research findings show that the ICC jurisprudence in the Myanmar situation not only did not prevent the loss of costs, according to the prosecutor under the concept of judicial economy, but only transferred it from the prosecutor’s office to the ICC. This view is based on two conclusions drawn from the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation in light of the ICC jurisprudence.First, the issuance of ruling on jurisdiction did not preclude the need to consider the prosecutor’s future request for authorization of the investigation in the Myanmar situation. However, if the prosecutor had resorted to the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Statute from the outset, both the ICC jurisdiction would have been established and the investigation into the Myanmar situation would have been authorized. This is a cost that the Prosecutor has paid for by wasting time, energy and the ICC’s facilities with the theory of judicial economy in her opinion in the situation of the Myanmar. Although the Prosecutor tried to make this cost zero by resorting to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute, but the ICC jurisprudence showed that this cost is not only not zero, but it is transferred from the Prosecutor’s office to the ICC. Of course, resorting to Article 15(3) of the Statute is subject to providing the necessary documents and reasons to prove the logical basis for the need to start a preliminary investigation in the situation in the Myanmar, which is obtained for the Prosecutor after a brief review of the issue and the supporting reasons according to Article 15(1) of the Statute. But there is a doubt that the Prosecutor was forced to resort to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute. If the prosecutor was sure that the principle of objective territorial jurisdiction and the effect of the Bangladesh’s membership in the situation of the Myanmar is the basis for exercising the ICC’s jurisdiction, perhaps she would not resort the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute instead of the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute and preliminaries.Second, recourse to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute has led to the disregard of the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Statute governing Article 18(7) of the Statute, which is related to Article 15(3) of the Statute. The competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction depends on the Prosecutor’s resort to the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute, which was missing in the process of hearing and issuing the ruling on jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s resort to Article 19(3) of the Statute without observing the formalities in Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute had a negative impact on the position of the state objecting to the application of complementary jurisdiction of the ICC at the stage of issuing the decision to accept jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. These requirements are one of the components of a fair trial and the granting of the opportunity to challenge the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction, which was fulfilled by the prosecutor in accordance with the procedures of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute, but did not. The right to object to the application of the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC or to prevent it by using the mechanism in Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute is for the state claiming criminal jurisdiction in the crimes under the ICC jurisdiction in which the Prosecutor is applying for permission to start an investigation. According to Article 15(3) of the Statute, the Prosecutor requests permission to start a preliminary investigation, and the state claiming jurisdiction immediately objects to it by resorting to Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute to prohibit the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction. Although this possibility is weak in the situation of the Myanmar, it should not be prejudged. Therefore, the judicial procedure thought out a solution to avoid ignoring the rights of the competent state in this regard. Therefore, the competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction at the stage of issuing the order accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction was postponed to the next stage, i.e. the stage of issuing the order for the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation in the Myanmar situation.

The ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation at the request of its prosecutor has a new achievement that has no precedent in the ICC jurisprudence. The prosecutor’s request for the ruling on jurisdiction is based on Article 19(3) of the Statute. However, the exercise of jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation is hampered by its non-membership in the ICC. But Pre-trial seek by establishing a connection between Articles 19(3) and 12(2)(a) of the Statute to provide a new achievement for all non-states party in the ICC, whose dimensions are important and one of the aims and subject of this article. The research method is descriptive-analytical and relies on the provisions of the Statute and the ICC’s jurisprudence to answer the main question of the research. The research question is what is the achievement of the ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation for the international community? The findings show that the extension of the ICC jurisdiction from the Member State of Bangladesh’s territory to the non-member state of Myanmar’s territory is an achievement of the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation, which has been missing in its jurisprudence. Accordingly, the criminal situation of states due to their non-membership in the ICC or non-referral of their situation by the UN Security Council is no longer beyond the ICC jurisdiction if the offense is committed in the ICC state party and non-state party’s territories. In these circumstances, the membership of one state has a positive effect on the non-membership of another state, and its criminal situation puts it before the ICC’s judges.

The deportation of citizens of Myanmar to the neighboring country Bangladesh is under Crimes against humanity that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over it if there is the mechanism of the membership of Myanmar government with the referral of the situation of that country from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). But there are not these mechanisms, in spite of that with adducing to the membership of Bangladesh the International Criminal Court has right to exercise jurisdiction in this situation that the Rohingya Muslims have been deported (removed) to the territory of that country. But this theory requires the authority of the objective territorial principle in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Studying the dimensions of this theory in the frame work of the criminal jurisdiction and the method of the Preliminary Branch of the International Criminal Court is of the aims and subject matter of this note with relying on Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Myanmar status and with descriptive-analytic has been considered. The question of research is what the components of the objective territoriality and jurisdiction over crimes of nationals of non-Member States (non-party states) with adducing the membership of the other country in ICC procedure are. The outcomes of research shows that the criterion of the objective territoriality in the crime of the forced deportation (expulsion) of citizens from international boards based on the membership of the country of destination establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over the criminal status of the nationals of the country of origin.

One of the worst crimes committed by some people against their own people is genocide. During the history of the crime, this crime has been repeatedly committed in recent years in the land of Myanmar and thousands of people have been subjected to the crime of belonging to A particular religious group (Muslims) has been targeted by perpetrators of genocidal crimes and have been severely misidentified. The distinction between the crime of genocide and other crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal constitutes the victimization of this crime to a particular ethnic, national, racial or religious group, and committed crimes of genocide in Myanmar, including the victim's belonging to the religious group of Muslims Found. In this article, we will try to examine the crime of genocide with a criminological approach and, in this context, to highlight the status of Myanmar as one of the examples of the lands where genocide has taken place.

Since 2017, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar has carried out severe repressions against the Rohingya people. These atrocities resulted in numerous international reactions from the States, international organizations, NGOs as well media. This article evaluates the proceedings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Gambia v. Myanmar case and the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation in the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court (ICC), with its extensive interpretation of the 1998 Rome Statute, found the cross-border element necessary for the perpetration of certain crimes, and despite Myanmar's non-membership in the Statute, the ICC found its jurisdiction over the crimes committed during the deportation of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the ICJ for the first time is facing a Case which is brought before it by an indirect victim State i.e. Gambia who has based all its allegations on the mysterious concept of violation of obligations erga omnes partes. This paper first provides summarized information on both pending proceedings and then will examine the challenges that international law has to find a proper solution for the Rohingya crisis through these judicial and criminal adjudication processes.

For decades, Myanmar Muslims that known as Rohingya in Rakhine state, are exposed to systematic violence by the state and state actors. The intensity of this violence occurred in June 2012 and drew the attention of the international community towards Myanmar. Processes of violence, discrimination, forced migration and legitimize them, whether before or after June 2012, under the genocide as a crime is surveyable, because acts of violence resulting in the killing and displacement of Muslims, the intention of destroying this minority group makes to mind. In this article, we explain the wretched situation of Muslims in Myanmar, the elements of the crime of genocide against Muslims in Myanmar prove to be criminal under international law. Also, due to the need for urgent action by the international community, especially the Security Council, ways on how to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the crime of genocide against Muslims in Myanmar are offered.

Despite the over seven decades of Myanmar's independence, United Nations concerns and at the head of that Secretary-General have remained about the Rohingya Muslim minority. Deprivation of citizenship and lack of recognition as an ethnic-religious have always provided the context to apply discriminatory behavior based on violence, crime and human rights violations against this minority. Along with media reflection about this tragedy in the world and expectation of the United Nations to address this issue, UN Secretary-General has been constantly monitoring and reviewing the situation of the Rohingya people through appointing two special advisers consist of The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and The Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. In this study, with the aim of reviewing the actions and measures had been taken against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and UN Secretary-General's reaction to it, the main question is that, what role has the UN Secretary-General played in the violent actions of the Myanmar government against the Rohingya minority during 2016 and 2017? In response, with using descriptive and analytical approach it is assumed that the United Nations Secretary-General with awareness of the unfair and inhuman conditions of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar over the past decades, has played a role in bringing global attention to the situation of Muslim Myanmar by adopting new approaches and new tools at the United Nations. The results of the research illustrate that, despite the efforts of the Secretary-General at the head of the UN Secretariat criminal acts against them have continued in 2016 and 2017.

A series of ongoing violence against Muslims in Myanmar has followed the innumerable international crimes. In the age of the accountability for the international crimes, this paper aims to answer this question which world community tools make the perpetrators be held accountable for these offences in Myanmar. At the international level, in the area of the individual criminal responsibility, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has prosecuted the crimes against humanity committed in Myanmar and the international liability of Myanmar related to the genocide against Muslims with the Gambia’s official complaint in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is to proceed. Also for the investigation and documentation of the human rights violations in Myanmar UN Human Right Council has applied the fact finding mechanism to record this genocide. In the national level, universal jurisdiction has provided a capacity for legal proceeding related to the massacres have been occurred in Myanmar. It has been applied in Argentina. The experience against impunity in Myanmar includes teachings for confronting the committed genocide in other crises that it is necessary to examine them.

According to reports from international institutions and organizations, including Human Rights Watch, High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, Myanmar Muslims, and in particular the ethnic and religious minority of Rohingya Muslims, have been pursuing discriminatory policies and the criminal acts of the Myanmar government and its Buddhist residents since decades. Meanwhile, the recent human tragedy and the terrible crimes committed against the Rohingya Muslims, which have been accompanied by the government of Myanmar and the military regime of the country, have more and more been faced with the response of the international community. Given the correspondence of these crimes with actus reus and mens rea of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, prosecution of those perpetrators at both national and international levels is debatable. At the national level, the Myanmar Courts, based on two principles of territorial jurisdiction and nationality jurisdiction and third countries courts based on the universality principle (Subject to the identification of such a principle in their internal laws) may interfere. More importantly, the mechanisms available at the international level include the referral of the status to the International Criminal Court or the formation of the Particular International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, there is also an intermediary mechanism, which is a hybrid or internationalized court that can be formed on the basis of an agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the Security Council. In this paper, the pros and cons of each of these courts is reviewed in order to handling of recent crimes committed in Myanmar.